1981:44; Walker, 1994:212], others quoting reform [Bentham in Honderich, 1989:51; Mabbot in Acton, 1969:17], and still others mistakenly using the two words interchangeably. General Prevention General prevention uses the punishment of the offender to prevent others from committing crimes. It has been argued that sending an offender to prison has three effects. Firstly through fear of suffering a similar fate to the offender, the general public is deterred from committing similar crimes [Lessnoff, 1971:141]. Secondly, by sending an offender to prison, a proclamation is issued specifying that it is morally wrong to disobey the law. Lastly, “with fear or moral influence as the intermediate link...unconscious inhibitions against crime...establishes a condition of habitual lawfulness” [Andenaes, 1974:8]. A number of issues are associated with the utilitarian justification of punishment: Firstly, utilitarianism allows for innocents to be punished. Moberly [1968:44] states that utilitarianism can account for “when no direct partaker of the crime can be apprehended, other people may be punished in his stead”. Secondly, the utilitarian justification of punishment as an investment does not uphold the claim of punishment to be “something more and other” [Moberly, 1968:70] than burdens such as quarantine and war imposed by the state. Moberly argues that it cannot, as this claim is only upheld when an essential attribute of punishment is that it relates to transgression of a law, and therefore the crime committed. Utilitarianism as a justification for punishment can be seen to fall under the category of a Theory of the Good rather than a Theory of the Right. Critique of utilitarianism If utilitarian justifications of punishment were sound, then one would expect to find certain conditions met by those who are punished. Looking specifically at imprisonment, one would conclude that the people in our prisons are dangerous or have a long criminal record (and are therefore in need of capacitation), that the amount of recidivism is low (as offenders will have been deterred from committing future crimes) and that there will be programs for rehabilitation and opportunities for reform in place. However a NSW Prison Report found that: 13% of inmates have an intellectual disability [p. 20] at the point of sentencing, indigenous persons are sentenced to imprisonment at about 10 times the rate expected given their relative population size [p. 21] of the above, 50% of crimes fell into theft, driving or offences against justice [p. 22] 50% of offences resulting in imprisonment